Originally Posted by Darkside Ron Garvin
I'm greatly confused. I'm trying to tell you I meant to say the same thing but you're misinterpreting the sentences as two things different. And even after telling you that, you're still doing it. It wasn't a deflection, it's clarification ...
I am not arguing that Ziggler was a heel, using heel tactics, during his heel run. What I am saying is that he was flipped at the descretion of the WWE (in one of my favorite double turns in a long time). When he cashed in, he was a heel. It wasn't until the Del Rio match in which Ziggler started to act like a babyface (breaking away from Big E and AJ). Once he turned, he fell flat on his face. Why? Because the fan support dropped along the way because smark crowds like to cheer the heels. He wasn't a heel, so he lost the Pop due to not enough people having invested emotionally into that specific version of the Ziggler character.
I heard this phrase a while back and it rings true; "if you pop, they will push". However, if you run into a situation like with Ziggler, they had nothing in his character that would maintain the fan support of a face character, hence why he dropped so far down the pecking order. Dolph Ziggler is in the same boat as Zack Ryder - a character that had the fans get behind him, but the character didn't really have enough meat on the bones to sustain the popularity. Ziggler is in a better position to rebound, but without the depth in his character he became the next flavor of the month that the WWE fans enjoyed one second and forgot the next. How this supports my claim is in the depth of character and emotional investment; he had no reason or "great moment" that turned him face that made the fans truly invest in him. Daniel Bryan had WM 28 and has built from there. What did Ziggler have to get the fans to invest in him as a face character?
Sounds like you were agreeing with me, then. Well said.
I am telling you all of this because you are taking a comment (off of the "dirtsheets" of all places) and speaking of it as fact. That's like taking the National Inquiror as being anything close to fact and not a small truth mixed with a MASSIVE amount of fabrication.
I honestly find it curious as to why you think that WWE would change the dynamic of how they built their show and essentially trust every member of the roster to "wing it" in order to get over; especially with the characters they are building in NXT, the character training they host at the Development Center, as well as the fact that they are in a situation to negotiate a MAJOR new contract on their network deals for the next decade. Sure, you can look for the silver lining in that you feel the talent can accomplish this - some of which can in the likes of a Punk, Jericho, Cena, Kane, Bryan, etc... - even though you see guys like Miz, Ziggler, and others who can't seem to do these things without having a step by step manual or creative telling them exactly what to say and how to say it. Like I said, I think you are looking into something on a deeper level than anything close to what was intended... All based off of an unsourced "comment" that was passed along 3rd hand to a dirtsheet.
And when did I ever say this was true? Dude, it's a discussion. I'm not speaking of it as "fact" but simply as a topic of discussion. Hell, it could be false, and if it is, then good. What if this WAS a reality? How would it shape the business? For the best, or the worse? That's all. It's nothing all that complicated. I'm not getting anything beneficial out of this personally. No one is going to look at me as some guru of wrestling.